Thoughts On Intra-Libertarian Cooperation, or “John Doesn’t Play Well With Others”
Feb 18, 05 | 1:09 am by John LopezRoderick Long has posted a brief call for courtesy amidst the angry debate between various factions of libertarian types. I can see his intent, but I don’t agree.
Let’s get something straight: I’m not here for the libertarian movement. I judge that the libertarian movement (whatever it is, with whatever sorts of people graft themselves onto it) is a waste of time at best. And I don’t care overmuch about you, Gentle Reader, either. Specifically, I don’t care whether I convince you of anything in particular.
I’m here for me.
I judge that having a worldview that’s more in accordance with reality is of value to me. As Mencken put it,
I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant.
Thus, I continually look for things that refine my perception of reality. If those things come without effort on my part, that’s fine. If I have to work for them, then that’s fine too. An example of something that came without effort on my part is this entry on the subject of abortion by fellow No-Treason’er Joshua Holmes. I’d thought about the subject in passing before, even gathered tantalizing hints from other people I respect, but Holmes knocked the argument out of the park in seven paragraphs. Something that took a tiny bit of effort was getting this correction from Stephan Kinsella. Despite the sharp tone of the discussion, I could and did recognize that I was wrong. And by doing so, I’m personally better off. I judge that neither Kinsella nor Holmes were looking to do me any favors there, they wrote what they did for their own purposes. And that’s just fine with me.
So what’s wrong with a sharp tone, anyway? Given my goals (which again explicilty do not consist of persuading anyone of much of anything) it’s at worst irrelevant. In actuality though, I judge blunt honesty to be a benefit. “I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.” I have no problem whatsoever with exposing my ideas to the criticism of others, I judge that they can stand or fail on their own merits. I don’t ask for or expect any quarter whatsoever if I’m wrong: instead it’s in my interests to be corrected as quickly as possible.
My goals as a principled individualist are perhaps different from those who view themselves as part of some greater movement. I have no desire to build coalitions with or gently persuade people who can’t deal with blunt honesty. To put it quite simply, people who can’t handle criticism aren’t going to be of any use to me at all: I judge that folks who crack when their flaws are exposed are never going to have a signifigant amount of ability to expose mine.
I don’t expect many people to agree with any part of the above. I flies in the face of what a political movement is supposed to be about, but I’m not a part of any movement. I’m looking to better my own self, and if other people gain value from my content, that’s just gravy for them. To sum it up once again, I’m here for me.
February 18th, 2005 at Feb 18, 05 | 6:16 am
You seem to be doing well. Rock on.
February 18th, 2005 at Feb 18, 05 | 7:46 am
It won’t be heard, since most libertarians are “movementarians” i.e. collectivists.
Witness the Leninist behaviour of the Rothbardians on this very site. Understand to them, the Party is All. You must submit to the Party Line or else be Purged. Nevermind the hypocrites and net-tax-comsumers in the midst of the Libertarian Vanguard, turn your eyes away and your mind off, because the Party is Always Right.
But regardless, I admire what you are attempting.
February 18th, 2005 at Feb 18, 05 | 11:29 am
FuUrther calls for civility can be found in Long’s comments buried here. Why do you think the fact that you write for your own purposes instead of for a libertarian movement implies Roderick’s plea for courtesy and civility is wrong? Just because one is selfish does not mean one is rude.
February 18th, 2005 at Feb 18, 05 | 1:05 pm
Crap, I had forgotten I even wrote that.
February 18th, 2005 at Feb 18, 05 | 4:36 pm
Check, morality is irrelevant. Check, your obnoxious. Thanks for the reminder, as if I needed any.
February 18th, 2005 at Feb 18, 05 | 4:37 pm
almost forgot: check, you just spent a whole lotta time and took up a whole lot of space trying to justify being obnoxious, when you could have (pretty accurately) summrized your thoughts on the matter as, “FU”.
February 18th, 2005 at Feb 18, 05 | 9:18 pm
Nice to hear someone else found the same bag.
February 18th, 2005 at Feb 18, 05 | 9:31 pm
Kinsella:
“Wrong”? I’m not sure what you mean by that. I stated that niceness doesn’t suit my purposes.
I never said that that was the case. Intra-libertarian rudeness generally does me more good than harm, I’d rather see honest discussion than verbal fig leaves. But nobody has to go out of their way to do anything for me.
February 19th, 2005 at Feb 19, 05 | 10:39 am
It’s an endless sea of skulls of mush out there and those who can’t evaluate arguments regardless of rhetoric are of little use to me here.
Long wrote:
Like Lopez I don’t care at all if anyone moderates their rhetoric. Rhetoric doesn’t change reality, it doesn’t make arguments more or less valid and it doesn’t interfere much with my evaluation of arguments. I often employ confrontational rhetoric to get directly to the point I’m addressing.
I find polarization clarifying, it helps me see how people are thinking.
Kinsella wrote:
I don’t care if you find me courteous or civil. Why should I? Anyone who can’t think straight in the face of what they consider incivility ought to learn.
February 21st, 2005 at Feb 21, 05 | 2:33 pm
I find polarization clarifying, it helps me see how people are thinking.
That’s your choice and interpretation. I find it distorts and over-simplifies what people are thinking.
I don’t care if you find me courteous or civil. Why should I? Anyone who can’t think straight in the face of what they consider incivility ought to learn.
I hope you treat your clients with civility. But at the end of the day the world has become just little more unpleasant and dark - courtesy of JTK. That’s not how I want to go out. It mystifies me that you would.
February 21st, 2005 at Feb 21, 05 | 9:47 pm
Given that most people aren’t thinking too clearly, that doesn’t detract too much.
Telling the truth hardly makes things more dark or unpleasant, it just exposes more of what’s there.
February 22nd, 2005 at Feb 22, 05 | 2:26 am
But Mr. Kennedy wasn’t only talking about “speaking the truth” even the blunt kind - he was quite specific about incivility not quite the same thing wouldn’t you say?
February 22nd, 2005 at Feb 22, 05 | 6:42 am
Who here is libertarian? I only see more filthy neocons.
February 22nd, 2005 at Feb 22, 05 | 8:58 am
I don’t get it, why do random comments occassionally appear accusing everyone here of being neocon, or leninist, or paleo, or communists, etc.
What’s up with that?
February 22nd, 2005 at Feb 22, 05 | 9:48 am
Reading a plea for civility from Mr. Kinsella is remarkably like reading a plea for thoughtfulness and moderation from Justin Raimondo.
February 22nd, 2005 at Feb 22, 05 | 12:06 pm
I too think we Leninistarians schould be civil to one another. I think we should all follow this leading example, by Leninistarian Stephan Kinsella:
February 22nd, 2005 at Feb 22, 05 | 10:13 pm
Purdy,
Incivility per se doesn’t detract from the issues at hand. If someone judges me wrong, gives evidence, and calls me a stupid motherfucker while doing so, I can seperate their invective from their argument. In fact I find most calls for “civility” from free-market types to be thinly-disguised calls for shutting up and getting with the program (Long’s previous mention explicitly excepted.).
Often the truth is quite uncivil: if someone is, say, advocating that armed men with guns interfere with my peaceful use of my property, it’s perfectly correct and quite impolite of me to tell them to shut their stupid cake hole. You’ll find that quite a bit of the material that’s blogged on this site involves similar things: someone trying to clap The Gun up against someone else’s head. That sort of cheerleading doesn’t deserve politeness, in fact it’s best exposed by rudeness. Rudeness as in: “Who the fuck are *you* to tell *me* what to do with *my stuff*, pal?”
In any case, as JTK said, folks who can’t seperate argument from style are of no use to me. Maybe they do something for the folks who’re trying to produce freedom like they’re running some sort of Glorious People’s Movement, I dunno.
But I need thinkers, not emoters.
February 22nd, 2005 at Feb 22, 05 | 10:38 pm
Stefan,
There’s a number of anonymous commenters that poke subtle fun at the Lewrockwell.com types by calling us neocons, etc., as certain LRC’ers also do.
And that’s fine.
February 23rd, 2005 at Feb 23, 05 | 2:12 am
Lopez,
Your very way of framing the point speaks volumes.
if someone is, say, advocating that armed men with guns interfere with my peaceful use of my property, it’s perfectly correct and quite impolite of me to tell them to shut their stupid cake hole.
Yes, but how many people have actually advocated that to you in precisely those words? If,on the other hand, someone offers the argument that society depends on everyone accepting moral obligations that go beyond their own immediate self-interest or that their own long term fully informed self-interest entails limitations on some freedoms, such as disposal of property, is it wise to tell him to “shut his stupid pie hole”?
You are the one drawing the inference that this hypothetical debater believes that this must and should always come down to armed enforcers and is therefore undeserving of a civil response. You draw this inference because your reasoning leads you to believe this is the inevitable outcome and one that is immoral. The debater may not see that and if so you have an opportunity to educate rather than denigrate.
It’s your website, do as you please, I just believe (and see from practice) that a modicum of civility and restraint has beneficial effects on debate and that the opposite simply inflames beyond what is necessary or even just.
Just my two cents.
February 23rd, 2005 at Feb 23, 05 | 2:19 am
John Purdy,
Lopez and Kennedy (and perhaps other No Treason folk) are not interested in persuading others to accept their views so they find no reason to be civil to those who don’t already share their own viewpoints. (Although Kennedy, bless his heart, is generally civil in spite of himself)
I don’t really disagree with this strategy, given the goals they are trying to achieve, although I personally find excessive insults distracting and uninteresting. To each his own.
February 23rd, 2005 at Feb 23, 05 | 1:10 pm
Tom Palmer: “Reading a plea for civility from Mr. Kinsella is remarkably like reading a plea for thoughtfulness and moderation from Justin Raimondo.”
Palmer is one of the most unfair and incivil libertarians I have ever come across. Just as violence is not per se immoral but is justified in response to initiated violence, so incivility directed at those who employ it is not necessarily unjustified. Palmer has long had a vendetta against certain people including other great libertarian individuals and institutions and continues to malign and personally attack. For him to complain of incivility is what is quite rich.
What bugs Palmer is that I and others don’t take his shrill cries seriously. The PC emperors are finally being revealed to have no clothes, and they don’t like it. Their whining and name-calling is just the thrashing of a dying beast.
February 23rd, 2005 at Feb 23, 05 | 1:25 pm
Tom Palmer and his fellow Seriosos have made themselves laughingstocks and their silly little foot-stamping petulant cries of “bigotry” into ignored yelpings. Just as blacks have taken on the N-word and use it familiarly among themselves–in part a backlash from it being used as a pejorative against them; so we “bigots” (and that means everyone alive–we are all bigots according to the Princess and the Pea standards employed by our ridiculous, self-enthroned Grand Inquisitors) are doing to treat the word as the joke it has become. Ya dig, mah bigot?
February 23rd, 2005 at Feb 23, 05 | 1:41 pm
Micha Ghertner,
Lopez and Kennedy (and perhaps other No Treason folk) are not interested in persuading others to accept their views…
Okay, although I’ll admit I don’t quite see the point in having a public website with a forum if it is not to persuade but that’s their choice - maybe it’s a form of entertainment for them I don’t know.
My issue is that this enormous vituperation of people who are in the same ballpark but disagree on points (even if they are important) is remarkably and disturbingly similar to how the Marxist-Leninist were (are). Moreover the emotional drive that lies behind this seems to me to be a form of moral rationalism, the idea that true reason leads inexorably and inevitably to one and only one correct line. Anyone deviating from this line is either mad or bad. By definition they cannot be motivated by true reason or morality.
The philosopher Walter Kaufmann describes moral rationalism and its related phenomenon Manichaeism as strategies of “decidophobia.” I see a lot of this among libertarians (the LRC folks are regrettably included).
My opinion is that people who truly wish to think for themselves need to at least pay some attention to decidophobia and the extent to which it influences their thinking.
For me, civility toward opposing opinions (except in “self-defence”) is an emotional discipline. But I do not claim I can prove its value apodictically. It’s a moral choice.
February 23rd, 2005 at Feb 23, 05 | 8:45 pm
Okay, although I’ll admit I don’t quite see the point in having a public website with a forum if it is not to persuade but that’s their choice - maybe it’s a form of entertainment for them I don’t know.
That’s one possibility; none of us knows Lopez or Kennedy in person, however, so this is a wild guess at best. Besides, Lopez explicitly said in the topic post that he’s here just here to learn new things and become a better thinker by hearing intelligent arguments others have to give. Now it might be that by being more polite Lopez will further this goal, but evidently he thinks it will not.
Anyone deviating from this line is either mad or bad. By definition they cannot be motivated by true reason or morality.
I agree that “decidophobia” as you put it is bad, but it’s not clear to me that’s a condition afflicting no-treasonites. The worst example I can think of is Kennedy’s recent remarks on the Mises blog, which while perhaps inappropriate didn’t merit beign banned from the blog. Examples, please?
February 23rd, 2005 at Feb 23, 05 | 9:14 pm
Purdy:
Who cares what sort of polysylabic malarkey they clothe their viewpoints in? I’m just as dead from the bullet that lies at the end of “The needs of The Peepul outweigh this slight inconvenience to you, Citizen.” as I am from the one behind “Gimme your shit, you Mex bastard!”
I vastly prefer to have the root issue of private property drug right out in the middle of the floor, because: a) that’s what it boils down to, and b) the other side has the most to gain from obfuscation.
And that’s why no-one uses ‘precisely those words’, because every last one of ‘em is desperate to avoid noticing that they are wishing for bloody-handed murder.
I point that inconvenient fact out, and I’m not nice about it. That horrfies most libertarian types, because most libertarian types think that they can hand-hold every last little black-hearted voting feeb into letting them alone.
Like lambs have something to gain by talking nice to coyotes.
There is only one correct line, that’s obvious from the identity principle. However, I don’t kid myself that I have a perfect understanding of reality.
Civility is neither moral nor immoral. You’re conflating vices with crimes. Vices Are Not Crimes. And vices are often incredibly problematic to uncover in others.
February 23rd, 2005 at Feb 23, 05 | 9:27 pm
because most libertarian types think that they can hand-hold every last little black-hearted voting feeb into letting them alone.
Hope springs eternal, huh?
the other side has the most to gain from obfuscation.
This is probably the most important point Lopez has made on this thread. Cloaking statism and violence in fancy or imprecise language is not a small one-time event, but rather an extremely common characteristic found among non-libertarians. So when libertarians argue with non-libertarians you shouldn’t be surprised by the libertarian’s bluntness–often this is an essential part, as Lopez points out, of identifying what the other person is in prinicple advocating.
February 23rd, 2005 at Feb 23, 05 | 9:35 pm
Two more things:
I’m not here to educate other folks: like I said, if they gain value from my content, that’s their own lookout. Also again, if someone’s denigrated by me speaking my piece, then they aren’t of much use to me. For my purposes it’s better to cull them from the discussion early on.
And yes, I do enjoy this: I’m no “activist”, bravely slogging on despite my sorrow and weariness, working for the Greater Good of all the people. To put it as succinctly as possible, fuck that. I contribute to this weblog for no other reason than my personal benefit, and I don’t care that much about it that I’d do it if it weren’t fun.
February 24th, 2005 at Feb 24, 05 | 12:49 am
Lopez, is it fun to be a loser? Just curious.
February 24th, 2005 at Feb 24, 05 | 9:09 pm
Once again Lawyer Kinsella proves he is quite intellectually distinguished.
Technically speaking.
P.S.: since you’re a self-described bigot, Kinsella, why don’t you use racial epithets instead of the trite, fratboy-esque “loser”? You could even disguise them with, say, pseudo-scientific wild-ass guesses about how the various voting factions of blacks, Jews, and orientals affect the average IQs of the major political parties.
Not that you’ve ever done that, or anything.
February 24th, 2005 at Feb 24, 05 | 10:34 pm
Kuntseller is no bigot, is he? But he is SO clever in his comments to those who don’t approve of his and some of his fellow LRC Rotweilers (and not everyone who writes for LRC is a dog; There’s just a particular bunch of sorry folks there…).
“For him to complain of incivility is what is quite rich.”
Say it ain’t so, Stuffed-one! Saying someone else is uncivil? Not that you’d be uncivil to anyone who disagrees with YOU..oh my no. You respond like a true gentleman and scholar. I feel so beaten down with how you were able to tear down every one of my arguments on another site with your sarcasm. I am so humbled.
(I am in awe of his rapier wit, and the way he misspelled my name to start out when responding to a comment I made (in which I also lost my cool and sunk to calling him a “bigoted asshole”..for which I do apologize, though I have to thnk of which word I should apologize for now…))
That deliberate not having the decency to use my real or correctly spelled name, or changing my name to “Sonnenschein”… really proved you are one clever dude. That really added to your stature, Steven Cuntswelling. (Actually, I understand why you did it. It’s kind of fun to play in the sandbox again, isn’t it Steffon?)
“It’s your website, do as you please, I just believe (and see from practice) that a modicum of civility and restraint has beneficial effects on debate and that the opposite simply inflames beyond what is necessary or even just.”
I do apologize for my being uncivil to everyone BUT Steffie KannedSalad. But the way he responds to attacks on those who happen not to be very pleased with views on LRC clarifies the debate…i.e. its a waste of time to palaver with folks who are far too clever for themselves and the rest of us and will do everything they can to defend the Klan. Oops. Freudian slip. Wrong “clan” of course! (Weak, I know, but I am not a clever person like S.K.)
SONNENWIRTH
(Get it right, be a mensch, S.K. I don’t like you and what you have to say, you don’t like me and what I have to say…but to resort to deliberately writing my name wrong? Big man.
February 24th, 2005 at Feb 24, 05 | 11:15 pm
Mo Sonnenwirth,
I have to say that despite my explicit endorsement of incivility, I find those comments to be somewhat uncalled-for.
Specifically, I am speaking of the comparison of Rottweilers to certain LRC’ers, and the nickname “Cuntseller”.
Rotties are very nice dogs, and I’m sure that the vast majority of prostitutes are honest, decent folks. As such, I judge that the comparison of dogs and hookers to the afore-mentioned individuals is a disservice to both Rottweilers and prostitutes.
February 24th, 2005 at Feb 24, 05 | 11:34 pm
I agree with most of the things that Lopez has to say about (in)civility and clarity of argument. But I’m a bit baffled by this:
It’s certainly true that vices are not crimes. But since when does “immoral” mean the same thing as “criminal”? Given the choice, I’d say it’s far closer to being synonymous with “vicious” than it is with “criminal.”
There are lots of rotten things you can do without violating anybody’s rights. The fact that they’re non-violent doesn’t mean that no moral judgment can be rendered on them; it just means that moral judgments about them can’t (legitimately) be enforced at gunpoint.
(For what it’s worth, I don’t think that incivility as Lopez practices it is vicious, either. Incivility can be a vice, but only when it’s practiced in a way that detracts from the conversation; and Lopez’s approach doesn’t usually do that.)
February 25th, 2005 at Feb 25, 05 | 1:39 pm
“I never liked any of you sonsofbitches, but I always wished I could have.”
February 25th, 2005 at Feb 25, 05 | 9:51 pm
RG:
So what’s the problem, then? Peaceful white seperatists might well be rotten and do rotten things, but I don’t see them as being immoral. Stupid, perhaps.
Do folks really have a moral obligation to be non-rotten? Obligation derived how?
February 25th, 2005 at Feb 25, 05 | 10:02 pm
Lopez:
“P.S.: since you’re a self-described bigot, Kinsella,”
What up, my bigot!
“why don’t you use racial epithets instead of the trite, fratboy-esque “loser”?”
Because I’m not a real bigot. You jackasses have denuded the term of its meaning.
“You could even disguise them with, say, pseudo-scientific wild-ass guesses about how the various voting factions of blacks, Jews, and orientals affect the average IQs of the major political parties.”
Ahhh, so it’s now “bigoted” to recognize there ARE races, and differences between them. Nice. Only the witty-bitty minorities get to do this, eh? Screw that. I am not playing by your rigged rules dude.
Sonnenwirth:
“Get it right, be a mensch, S.K. I don’t like you and what you have to say, you don’t like me and what I have to say…but to resort to deliberately writing my name wrong? Big man.”
I don’t remember if I did that. Probably couldn’t remember and dind’t have time to go cut and paste. Who cares. Make fun of my name if you want; I was called cuntsmeller in high school. Down here in Hispanic Houston I often am mistaken for Consuelo or even Gonzales.
By the way, I am generally extremely civil when people stick to *substance*, no matter how much I disagree. When they start getting personal, or incivil, then I react in kind. I don’t apologize for it. I am also often blunt and to the point, which I don’t regard as incivil; but lots of people are pussies and get distracted by it.
For example, your boy Lopez there is one of these open borders egalitarian types who likes to label anyone who does not favor open borders–i.e., 99% of all Americans including 90% at least of all libertarians–as nativists and racists. The bleating of goats does not require civility.
February 25th, 2005 at Feb 25, 05 | 10:52 pm
Kinsella:
Ah. The Digital Brownshirts redux.
(Hint: That never works.)
Given that you’ve previously denied having a reading comprehension problem, I’ll instead suggest that you can’t think clearly when you get worked up.
Kinsella’s memory is noticeably poor when he’s in the wrong. And this isn’t to suggest dishonesty or anything, it could very well be a blank-out.
You do have a citation for that charge, right? Post it up, Kinsella: show the inlookers that you can back up your assertions with facts.
February 25th, 2005 at Feb 25, 05 | 11:05 pm
Do folks really have a moral obligation to be non-rotten? Obligation derived how?
Golden rule? Makes about as much sense as any other moral derivation. Probably a lot more if its popularity is any indication.
February 25th, 2005 at Feb 25, 05 | 11:09 pm
Because I’m not a real bigot. You jackasses have denuded the term of its meaning.
What is its meaning, Kinsella? Care to share your definition? I’ve asked you this question repeatedly and you have consistently refused to answer. No doubt because you know any reasonable definition you give would trap you in your own apologia.
February 26th, 2005 at Feb 26, 05 | 10:35 am
Ghertner: “What is its meaning, Kinsella? Care to share your definition? I’ve asked you this question repeatedly and you have consistently refused to answer. No doubt because you know any reasonable definition you give would trap you in your own apologia.”
I’m not running around like a yapping dog making the charge, asshole. You fucking define it, and in a way that is not absurd and silly and does not trap you and your bleating college buddies in its net too.
February 26th, 2005 at Feb 26, 05 | 10:58 am
Lopez:
“NSK: “For example, your boy Lopez there is one of these open borders egalitarian types who likes to label anyone who does not favor open borders–i.e., 99% of all Americans including 90% at least of all libertarians–as nativists and racists.”
“You do have a citation for that charge, right? Post it up, Kinsella: show the inlookers that you can back up your assertions with facts.”
Try here, my bigot. Link.
Where you said, “The only people I wouldn’t want in my neigborhood is fucking racists like you.”
My my, everyone is a “racist”. Do you use a night-light at night to keep them away? BOO!
[Edit: fixed the link. See comments about long URLs below. JL]
February 26th, 2005 at Feb 26, 05 | 11:18 am
Pay attention now Kinsella, because this is important:
That quote wasn’t from me.
That quote comes from this post. If you go back and read it, you will note that Micha Ghertner (posting under a nym, a nym which was identified as his in your own fucking citation, by the way) was the one who said that.
Got all that? Good. Now, go find a citation where I said what you claimed I did.
February 26th, 2005 at Feb 26, 05 | 11:53 am
A Theory of Lopez’s Theory on Incivility
As I have noted elsewhere, many nutjobs, conspiracy theorists, losers, racists, cranks, etc., associate with movements like libertarianism, conservatism, militias, common law courts, etc. I think the reason is, in part, that when a view is marginalized by mainstream American–e.g., libertarianism, militias, etc.–then successful people tend not to associate with it, since they have something to lose. Some of us have the fortitude and type of careers that allow us to swim against the tide anyway, yet still keep a foot in a successful career, but not everyone.
So these movements tend to draw disproportionate numbers of those who have little to lose–i.e., losers, uneducated, those on the bottom rungs of society. This is why, for example, at libertarian-party or similar events I’ve spoken at or attended, where, e.g., the topic might be something academic like whether decentralized legal systems (judge-made law, courts, common law, Roman law) are superior to centralized, legislation-based systems, many of the people who show up are uneducated Harley riders who ask you over and over again about the nutball “common law court” stuff (this happened to me one time at a FEE-sponsored discussion group in Valley Forge), or ask you to show where in the tax code you are “required” to pay income tax, etc.
And this is why militia movements, for example, which in the older days would have upstanding citizens and “patriots” as its supporters, now are populated with gun nuts, racists, skinheads, anti-semites, etc. These are the type of people who have nothing to lose so have the luxury of joining a marginalized movement, thereby making it even more marginalized and crankish.
So it’s understandable that the only people willing, by and large, to openly challenge mainstream views by endorsing views marginalized or ridiculed by conventional society are those with little to lose. Sometimes someone with stature or courage or backbone will buck the trend, or become martyrs, but by and large, it’s understandable why those with little to lose–who are either losers, or retired billionaires–predominate.
(As an aside–something like this has been true for some time regarding politically correctness. For a couple decades now there were things you just could not say or question–especially if you were (no offense, Lopez) a white male). But just as explicit socialism has crumbled along with the Soviet empire, so the majority are starting to shrug, like Atlas, the burden continually placed on them by the PC Seriosos. They are sick of being told they are evil for being white or in the majority, or for holding preferences similar to those held by the whining minorities or special interests; and the escalating, shrill cries of the politically-correct have become ever more absurd, making them sound ever more like bleaters. They have diluted and distorted and twisted concepts like racism, bigotry, anti-semitism so much that no one bats an eye any more when a dimwit cries “racist!”; people roll their eyes and move on. And this is as it should be. So my point here is that it’s becoming more and more acceptable to be “politically incorrect” as the PC standards are revealed as being hypocritical, strange, unfair. Again, no offense, Lopez.)
This brings me to my point, though. Lopez (and Kennedy? I can’t recall) seems remarkably passionate about not following any rules of civility. I suspect one reason for this is he is just a marginal nobody with nothing to lose. While I do criticize him elsewhere, I don’t mean this to be a criticism at all, just a hypothesis. From what I know of Lopez, he is a blogger and a blogger only; no real publications or books, no credentials or status, no “name,” etc. This is true of most of us so again, I don’t mean this to be a criticism at all. It’s in part a suggested explanation as to why some blogger types will be so incivil–because they have nothing to lose–no book deals, no TV interviews, no teaching positions, etc.
Now, no doubt some might try to rebut this by saying that I, Kinsella, am also incivil. This would be ridiculous, for a few reasons.
First, so what? So what if it applies to me too? So what if I’m a hypocrit? It does not mean I’m wrong.
Second, I am not generally incivil, but only to the marginalized losers who are incivil because of this status. Mainstream society does not frown too much on responding to losers, as long as one is not a loser himself.
February 26th, 2005 at Feb 26, 05 | 11:58 am
A Theory of Lopez’s Incivility. Keeps getting blocked so I have posted it on my blog. Link.
[Edit - fixed the link. Folks, long URLs fuck up the blog layout and are ugly besides. Learn to code them or use tinyurl. Also note that comments may be held for moderation by the blog software, please don’t resubmit them.
Kinsella: I approved the one with the paragraph breaks as it’s more readable. JL]
February 26th, 2005 at Feb 26, 05 | 12:06 pm
Lopez:
“Pay attention now Kinsella,”
Bigot, you can’t order this bigot around! Sheee-it, what kind ‘o bigot you think you is?
“because this is important:”
Why, no, it’s not. Or, as Roark said to Toohey, “But I don’t think of you.”
“That quote wasn’t from me.
“That quote comes from this post. If you go back and read it, you will note that Micha Ghertner (posting under a nym, a nym which was identified as his in your own fucking citation, by the way) was the one who said that.”
Ghertner, Lopez, what’s the difference. You bigots is both dimwit-Seriosos.
“Got all that? Good. Now, go find a citation where I said what you claimed I did.”
Nahh, who gives a rat’s ass? Here’s what I WILL DO. I will assert NOW that it will be ASSUMED, unless and until you explicitly deny it, that you DO in fact maintain that those who oppose open border are “nativists and racists.” You have certainly said enough stupid PC things to justify this assumption. So, that is the current assumption. You are free to rebut it. If you don’t, it will hereinafter be assumed as being true.
Don’t play stupid games with me, my bigot. It does not matter that I find a “link” or if you have written those words before. Bigot, quit evading and wasting time, when you could simply either deny or admit the charge, and save us all time. Better to cut to the chase, doughboy.
February 26th, 2005 at Feb 26, 05 | 12:16 pm
Kinsella:
I don’t think that everyone who is against open borders is a nativist and/or a racist.
February 26th, 2005 at Feb 26, 05 | 12:40 pm
Actually, that “theory of a theory” isn’t too bad. It falls down a bit at the end with the appeal to mainstream society (in contrast with the first paragraph), but that’s more irrelevant than wrong. I find the use of the term “loser” to be a little inconsistent within the piece as well, that probably needs to be clarified.
Kinsella does make an important point that I’ve seen made before, here:
February 26th, 2005 at Feb 26, 05 | 1:49 pm
I think the “pro-liberty” ranks are stuffed to the gills with folks who are little more than contrarians.
Oh this is so right. One day soon, I’m writing a piece called something like “The Disaster of Libertarian Contrarianism” where I want to argue that the apparent desire to be against what the “mainstream” is for has been diastrous for libertarianism. Sometimes, the mainstream is right, you know.
February 26th, 2005 at Feb 26, 05 | 2:33 pm
Lopez, “I don’t think that everyone who is against open borders is a nativist and/or a racist.”
See how easy that was? And it avoided us having to go URL hunting. But go ahead and go above and beyond–save a bit more time by specifying what you actually do think, instead of being miserly and saying only what you don’t think.
February 26th, 2005 at Feb 26, 05 | 2:39 pm
“Oh this is so right. One day soon, I’m writing a piece called something like “The Disaster of Libertarian Contrarianism” where I want to argue that the apparent desire to be against what the “mainstream” is for has been diastrous for libertarianism. Sometimes, the mainstream is right, you know.”
This might be interesting Steve. In broad outline I think I might agree with you, but I suspect that in your application, I won’t. But we’ll see. Some of the paleos in a sense buck this trend, by refusing to join the contrarian libertine traditional authority-hating libertarians. I think you should be careful to distinguish between strategy/tactics, and subsantive truth. You sound like you are aiming at the former when you talk aout “disaster”. I agree that we ought to pick our battles: focus on the most important things, like cutting taxes. Minor matters like abortion can wait.
However, just because knee-jerk contrarianism may be problematic and the mainstream is sometimes right does not mean they always are. It would just be an appeal to authority in any particular case, so you’d need to be careful not to do that either.
Also, psychologizing is useful and interesting but fraught with peril. So there’s a need to distinguish between the merit of an idea and the motivations of those to propose them.
February 26th, 2005 at Feb 26, 05 | 3:45 pm
And avoided you having to admit that you were fabricating nonsense out of thin air. Which you were. Or maybe you “don’t remember”?
And I have specified quite clearly what I think, virtually every time that the immigration issue has been on the table. Here, for instance:
How you read ‘All advocates of closed borders are racists and nativists’ out of that is beyond me.
February 26th, 2005 at Feb 26, 05 | 4:49 pm
“How you read ‘All advocates of closed borders are racists and nativists’ out of that is beyond me.”
The other dude said Micha, you are right, I now see. I thought he meant you. I must have had a brain fart.
February 27th, 2005 at Feb 27, 05 | 1:23 pm
Kinsella,
I’m not running around like a yapping dog making the charge, asshole. You fucking define it, and in a way that is not absurd and silly and does not trap you and your bleating college buddies in its net too.
Charles Johnson already adequately defined it previously in one of these No-Treason threads, and you never responded. I’m not going to waste my time looking up those posts since it will most likely be a waste of time when you choose to ignore it again.
So the burden is on you. The anti-bigotry side has spoken; it is now time for your side to speak up and explain whether or not you believe such a thing as bigotry is possible, and if so, what it consists of and how it can be identified.
February 27th, 2005 at Feb 27, 05 | 8:19 pm
Ghertner,
It’s obvious that Kinsella is too stupid to use successfully use search tools and too dishonest to come to grips with what he would find there, if he did.
My prediction: he’ll continue to chatter and foam, here or elsewhere.
February 28th, 2005 at Feb 28, 05 | 9:46 am
Ghertner and Lopez–the only “burden” here is the one you two will suffer under having to live as politically-correct, brainwashed idiots.
February 28th, 2005 at Feb 28, 05 | 9:27 pm
See?
March 1st, 2005 at Mar 01, 05 | 9:14 am
Ghertner:
Probably, but I keep links to my offsite comments around, so the marginal cost is lower for me to dig them up. So here’s the definition and the clarification. In case you hate following hyperlinks, the definition is:
Ghertner apparently accepts this definition; I don’t know whether or not Lopez does.
Kinsella:
Lopez:
That’s Lopez’s prerogative of course. But I’ll be your huckleberry even if he won’t. I think that everyone who is against open borders is against it for bigoted reasons; that’s because there are no non-bigoted reasons to oppose open borders. They aren’t necessarily racist or nativist reasons (there are imaginable immigration policies that are based on socioeconomic class or sexuality or religion rather than race or nationality, for example), but I take it that the general claim of bigotry is what you’re interested in rather than its specific application in claims of racism or nativism.
Does advocating something for bigoted reasons always make you a bigot? I don’t know. Maybe in one sense and not in another sense. I don’t care much anyway.
So everyone who opposes open borders is, therefore, advocating a policy for bigoted reasons. Now what?
March 1st, 2005 at Mar 01, 05 | 1:10 pm
And for the record, I proudly stand behind all of the comments I made in this anti-state thread (I’m Spallenzani), which has been linked around recently in order to somehow make me look bad for implying that the anti-immigration side likely operates from nefarious motives.
March 1st, 2005 at Mar 01, 05 | 3:40 pm
I did a movie based on this thread.
Nom!
March 1st, 2005 at Mar 01, 05 | 9:58 pm
RG:
I judge that a large portion of the populance operates from a position of epistemological ignorance that borders on outright superstition. That coupled with their instrumental rationality means, in a nutshell, that most folks’ opinions on any given moral subject are as fucked up as a football bat.
That said, it then follows that someone can be against open borders because they haven’t given the matter too much thought and they don’t have the tools to think about it even if they did. There’s plenty of “law-n-order” asshole conservatives that are against illegal immigrants simply because they’re breaking the law.
They may be bigots (I’d stipulate the definition quoted above), but they aren’t willfully so.
All that aside, the choices in the particular issue at hand (Kinsella) boil down to either him being against free immigration for bigoted reasons (that is, proceeding to his conclusion from bigotry) or him being against immigration because he’s as butt-ignorant as the voting masses, or both.
I’d judge that it’s a little of both, a bit of good ol’-fashioned “northern European cultural superiority” (wink-wink-nudge-nudge) combined with a willful ignorance when it comes to questioning his own position and motivations and a blind acceptance of what the “great men” have written about the subject.
His faux-outraged denial is telling as well: “The guilty flee when none pursueth”.
Dude, you aren’t going to get anything coherent out of Kinsella, because he lacks the ability to engage in honest discussion. He’s an irrational evangelist. You aren’t assuming his conclusion along with him like a good little paleocreep, so he’s reduced to squealing incoherency about || that quick.
March 2nd, 2005 at Mar 02, 05 | 10:43 am
Lopez,
Am I a paleocreep, or even a paleo? Really? How do you know? You idiots are always getting personal. You know nothing about me. Or Hoppe.
“I’d judge that it’s a little of both, a bit of good ol’-fashioned “northern European cultural superiority” (wink-wink-nudge-nudge) combined with a willful ignorance when it comes to questioning his own position and motivations and a blind acceptance of what the “great men” have written about the subject.”
Even if I were opposed to open immigration because I was concerned about our culture being diluted or lost, why would that be a bigoted view of our “superiority”? Can’t someone like their own culture merely because it’s theirs, without having to believe it’s “superior”? And anyway, why is it bigoted or racist to believe one’s own culture *is* superior? So what? Why are white Christians the only group that is not allowed to want and like their own culture? Every other nation is less diverse and has their own race or culture, and most of them try to preserve it. The Jews in Israel favor Jewish immigrants. France is worried about English eroding the French language. Etc. Why is only America the subject of our such attacks?
As for ignorance, etc., some of us are concerned with individual rights, and we believe opening the borders *and changing nothing else* would lead to more rights violations.
March 2nd, 2005 at Mar 02, 05 | 12:19 pm
Every other nation is less diverse and has their own race or culture, and most of them try to preserve it. The Jews in Israel favor Jewish immigrants. France is worried about English eroding the French language. Etc.
I suppose, if France and Israel jump off a bridge, you will, too.
Seriously, do you want to pattern American policy about much of anything on European policy? That’s not going to lead to many conclusions you’ll find acceptable.
Why is only America the subject of our such attacks?
It’s not, it’s just a product of all of us being Americans discussing a book by a guy who lives in America. It’s also because America, warts and all, is the best fucking place on Earth and has been for more than a century. People want to come to America in droves. They’re not lining up to get into Outer Mongolia.
As for ignorance, etc., some of us are concerned with individual rights, and we believe opening the borders *and changing nothing else* would lead to more rights violations.
Robert Nozick shredded utilitarianism of rights years ago in Anarchy, State, and Utopia. In the paperback edition I have, the argument is on pages 28-33. Briefly, rights are not means to a higher goal, they are themselves the goal.
March 2nd, 2005 at Mar 02, 05 | 5:13 pm
Rights are side-constraints on permissible action, and not a desideratum to be maximized. The act of maintaining closed-borders entails violating rights; the act of opening borders does not. One cannot be a strict natural rights libertarians and oppose opening the country’s borders.
March 2nd, 2005 at Mar 02, 05 | 9:35 pm
I know that neither of you can think straight about immigration. But since you’re broached the subject, maybe you can set the record straight on exactly why that is.
For the same exact reason that I attack democracy rather than the divine right of kings: it’s what affects me.
No you’re not, you’re concerned about being able to continue to free-ride off of the State’s production of violence.
March 2nd, 2005 at Mar 02, 05 | 11:51 pm
“Rights are side-constraints on permissible action, and not a desideratum to be maximized. The act of maintaining closed-borders entails violating rights; the act of opening borders does not. One cannot be a strict natural rights libertarians and oppose opening the country’s borders”
I am not a natural rights libertarian, strictly understood. Nor is HHH.
The act of opening borders does violate rights, if you change nothing else. That is why I would advocate opening borders only if other changes happen. This is common sense.
Just go to any Wal-Mart at 5:00 on a weekday afternoon and you will see.
March 3rd, 2005 at Mar 03, 05 | 1:45 am
I am not a natural rights libertarian, strictly understood. Nor is HHH.
So you two are natural rights utilitarians? You are willing to actively violate some people’s rights if it helps alleviate the violation of large number of rights elsewhere?
(The Austrian inside me might mention something about interpersonal comparisons of natural rights at this point, but the Austrian inside me is not very vocal.)
March 3rd, 2005 at Mar 03, 05 | 2:44 am
lung knows the secrets of the chariot.
lung is a natural rights lung.
(ominous silence)
March 3rd, 2005 at Mar 03, 05 | 9:09 am
Lawyer Kinsella is against everyday low prices as well!
March 3rd, 2005 at Mar 03, 05 | 10:24 am
The act of opening borders does violate rights, if you change nothing else.
The act of opening borders may lead to rights violations, but the act of opening borders, itself, is a rights-positive action. Separate the actions, and deal with each one in a libertarian way.
March 3rd, 2005 at Mar 03, 05 | 10:41 am
Ending welfare, and doing nothing else, would increase rights violations as some of those who are on welfare would turn to crime (or just do more of it) rather than get a job. Assume that the government still extracts the same amount of money from taxpayers, it just spends the savings on more marble edifices and aircraft carriers.
March 3rd, 2005 at Mar 03, 05 | 2:17 pm
Andy,
Assume people will steal more if you provide them with less stolen goods? I’m not sure that’s true in general. I know it’s false in some particular cases. Some might violate less rights.
The equation of crime with rights violations is not strictly correct, but I know what you meant.
Anyway, Hoppe says that other evils produced by the welfare state must be treated as analytically distinct from immigration. His fans like Kinsella routinely fail to do so.
I was just at a Walmart at 5 pm the other day. I didn’t see any support for Kinsella’s argument. But that’s nothing new.
March 3rd, 2005 at Mar 03, 05 | 3:35 pm
“Anyway, Hoppe says that other evils produced by the welfare state must be treated as analytically distinct from immigration. His fans like Kinsella routinely fail to do so.”
How can any libertarian read his magisterial A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism and not be a fan? Seriously.
March 3rd, 2005 at Mar 03, 05 | 3:39 pm
Ghertner: “So you two are natural rights utilitarians? You are willing to actively violate some people’s rights if it helps alleviate the violation of large number of rights elsewhere?”
No. I mean we both believe in individual rights but not on traditional “natural rights” grounds.
See Hoppe’s monumental treatise A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, note 7, p. 234-235:
March 3rd, 2005 at Mar 03, 05 | 10:19 pm
What-it-is-Holmes say, “The act of opening borders may lead to rights violations, but the act of opening borders, itself, is a rights-positive action. Separate the actions, and deal with each one in a libertarian way.”
Well, characterizing what “the action” is, is the troublesome issue–akin to identifying the “maxim” of an action.
Someone might maintain that “opening borders” is the action of “granting to additional people the right to trespass against my property by means of government roads and affirmative action laws.” For example.
March 4th, 2005 at Mar 04, 05 | 11:43 am
Only if that someone would prefer to bash immigrants as opposed to bashing the State. (which might be injurious to his lawyering career, or cause the rotting corpse of Sam Francis to place peevish midnight phonecalls to his domicile, or something.)
March 4th, 2005 at Mar 04, 05 | 11:50 am
note:
1. that last comment is by john. lung is too cute to capitalize. that is how you can tell.
2. stephen kinsella has a giant head full of poo! it is stinky and smelly! (tee-hee)
lung,
accept no substitutes
(ps: lung loves w.)
March 4th, 2005 at Mar 04, 05 | 1:41 pm
Kinsella,
You didn’t really answer my question (not that I am surprised). I know that Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics is of a different kind than traditional Lockean Natural Rights. What I asked, though, is whether you are willing to actively violate some people’s rights if it helps alleviate the violation of larger number of rights elsewhere. And I hinted to the problem of interpersonal comparisons, which you Austrians seem to like when it fits your purposes.
March 5th, 2005 at Mar 05, 05 | 2:24 pm
G-dog:
“You didn’t really answer my question (not that I am surprised). I know that Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics is of a different kind than traditional Lockean Natural Rights. What I asked, though, is whether you are willing to actively violate some people’s rights if it helps alleviate the violation of larger number of rights elsewhere.”
I have no problem with someone being invited to an owner’s private property so long as that invitee does not pose a threat to innocent people.
What about the idea that so long as government owns public property it must use it, insofar as it does not return it, as the owners wish it? Clearly some owners would not want it used for “open borders” purposes; while others (a very small minority) would. Why is it obvious to you that the state, as caretaker of land owned by at least some American citizens, has an obligation to permit this property to be used by any and all comers? Let’s say my small city uses my taxes to build a rec center down the street. Sure, a private solution is preferred. But so long as they are taxing me to construct and operate it, isn’t it better for me if they limit its use to residents, instead of opening it to all? If one out of 10,000 citizens wants it opened to all, does that mean it is some kind of rights violation of *outsiders’ rights* if it restrics entry? After all, if we citizens had voluntarily built it, surely we would establish restrictions on entry. Surely you can see the analogy to immigration policy.
The point is not here to prove the anti-open-borders case one way or the other. The point is rather to demonstrate that a libertarian can in good faith oppose open borders, and based on his view in individual rights. He believes rights will be violated further or to a greater degree, if there are open borders *with no other changes*.
In the rec center case: the best solution would be to return it to the owners. Absent that, their rights are being violated by being taxed, so it helps to give them some restitution if the rec center provides a value to them–clearly this is a greater value to them if it is restricted to them instead of being open to all. If you take my money, you have an obligation to return it; if you don’t, then if you spend it, you have an obligation to spend it on me; if you don’t, if you spend it on others, it’s even worse.
Why do you judgmental “know it all” cocksure libertarians leap to personal attacks and bad motivations when someone disagrees with your plumbline views? Does it ever occur to you there is room for reasonable debate on some issues? Does it occur to you that someone like Hoppe who has with his monumental output demonstrated a passionate interesti nin liberty, deserves a bit of the benefit of the doubt, from young, cocksure libertarians?
Let me ask you what specifically you disagree with in Hoppe’s comments here:
What about here (discussed/quoted here):
March 9th, 2005 at Mar 09, 05 | 11:40 pm
Kinsella:
I sure can’t. Here’s why: immigration policy, as we know it today, is practiced against people whether they are using government “property” or not. (Would you propose using force to stop me if I operate a helicopter service to transport Mexican immigrants from Mexico to a house that they have rented, and from their house to their place of work, without using any government roads? La Migra would.)
Of course, if you want to claim that your attacks on “open borders” don’t have anything to do with immigration policy as currently practiced–or, for that matter, with borders (since you’re proposing enforcement at the entry to roads etc., not necessarily at the border)–you can do that. But then it’s incumbent on you to explain how your proposals for pre-anarchic immigration policy are relevantly different from those of the assorted Know-Nothing blowhards who are calling on La Migra and the Border Patrol to escalate their war on immigrants rather than fundamentally change their approach.
Once you’ve done that, it’s still incumbent to you to explain how imposing the restriction on coercively monopolized resources (e.g. roads) is morally any different from stationing gunmen to enforce the restriction on private resources against the owners’ will. If there is a salient difference, what is it? If not, then how are you not advocating a violation of rights?
Lopez:
Sure, but I don’t think that means that their reasons aren’t bigoted. It just means that the dominant form of bigotry at work is either (a) bigotry against non-citizens as such, rather than against a particular racial or ethnic or socioeconomic group (believing that the government has more-or-less unlimited authority to impose coercive restrictions on non-citizens that they wouldn’t accept if placed on citizens), or (b) bigotry against civilians as such (believing that, among other things, the government has the unlimited authority to attack anyone it sees fit if the right background conditions–e.g., an allegedly worthy goal, or alleged majority support–obtain). I think most conservative “law-n-order” immigration creeps are creeps of type (a); although there are probably some straight-up type (b) totalitarians, too. Either way, the reasons they have for supporting assaults on immigrants comes down to collectivist group-warfare; I take that to be, as such, a violent form of bigotry.
March 10th, 2005 at Mar 10, 05 | 12:15 am
I didn’t notice Stephan’s last comment above until Rad Geek just responded to it, and I don’t really feel like responding to the post in full, but I will make a few comments.
No one “owns” public property except for the government. The government has an obligation to compensate the tax-payers it has stolen from to pay for this property, if possible, but the tax-payers as a group do not have any rightful say in how that property should be used until it is given back to them. How would this be accomplished if otherwise? By majority vote? The great critic of democracy, HHH, wants to resurrect this God despite his previous claims of its failure? What could be more absurd? Even if we assume that the majority of taxpayers are anti-immigration, why should their opinion carry more weight than the minority who are pro-immigration? This argument is way outside the bounds of libertarian thought.
Second, for a group of people who consider themselves economists, its interesting that they hold everything constant in their predictions of what would happen with a large increase in immigrants. Surely, such a change would have no influence on public policy: the popularity of welfare would no doubt remain fixed. Please.
Third, I always find it amusing when anti-immigration libertarians are so concerned with the stability and smooth functioning of the welfare state. God forbid we should put a strain on the system, for that way leads to
anarchychaos.March 10th, 2005 at Mar 10, 05 | 12:16 am
The second to last word in the previous post was supposed to have a
strikeouttag, but that didn’t seem to work properly.March 10th, 2005 at Mar 10, 05 | 3:24 am
That’s too bad; I rather like the idea of “anarchy chaos”
March 10th, 2005 at Mar 10, 05 | 10:11 am
Kinsella wants to know what, specifically, Ghertner would disagree in in Hoppe’s comments pasted above. I don’t know about Micha, but as for myself there are so many places that I don’t know where to start. More or less arbitrarily, here’s one passage that struck me as, frankly, particularly laughable:
For starters, I deny that there is such a thing as a “natural order;” I think the notion, at least as Hoppe deploys it, is dangerous, anti-human nonsense. (The most important part of our nature as human beings is our capacity for creating things anew and making and remaking our social relationships.) Maybe you could explain what you think a “natural order” means, Stephan, and why you think we should aim at getting one to coalesce.
For the follow-up, I had a good hard laugh when Hoppe predicted civil war inevitably following from the formation of ethno-linguistic enclaves–in Switzerland–and accused his opponents of a “breathtaking sociological naivete.” Switzerland is, in case you haven’t noticed, already a multi-ethnic, polyglot society; it has, compared to the rest of Europe, been remarkably peaceful and prosperous for over 700 years. While we’re at it, somewhere around 20% of the population are already resident foreigners or temporary foreign workers. Somehow, the Swiss seem to manage. This has a lot to do with tolerance, military neutrality, and an intensely decentralist political system, and very little to do with ridiculous notions like a Swiss “national identity.” (There is no Swiss nation at all.)
So why does Hoppe believe that the formation of new ethno-linguistic enclaves in Switzerland would inevitably lead to civil war when Switzerland has been a loosely-affiliated collection of ethno-linguistic enclaves for 700 years? He doesn’t say. It is, apparently, supposed to be taken as more or less self-evident; certainly anyone who doesn’t buy it is accused of “breathtaking sociological naivete.” Yet the facts are already on the ground. Res ipso loquitor.
March 10th, 2005 at Mar 10, 05 | 2:07 pm
Rad Geek:
“Kinsella:
” Surely you can see the analogy to immigration policy.
“I sure can’t. Here’s why: immigration policy, as we know it today, is practiced against people whether they are using government “property” or not. (Would you propose using force to stop me if I operate a helicopter service to transport Mexican immigrants from Mexico to a house that they have rented, and from their house to their place of work, without using any government roads? La Migra would.)”
Well. In my view the American people as taxpayers–or some of them–are true “owners” of public land. The feds possess and control them. It ought to give it back and privatize. Failing that, it ought to use the land in the true owner’s interests. If there are conflicting interests there is no way to satisfy everyone but the most reasonable course would be to do what the overwhelming majority of true owners wants. Almost every American would want SOME restrictions on immigration, and it seems clear that a private monarch-owner would also do this. Therefore it seems reasonable for the feds to issue a rule barring some immigrants from using the roads etc.
Now, if you wanted to fly an immigrant barred from public property to your land and keep him there, I would agree, that is your right. But this is impracticable. Virtually every immigrant brought in is going to end up using public property. Keeping them from committing this trespass is reasonable. I would not oppose immigration only onto private property, but as soon as he is caught on public properyt he would be jailed for trespass. Which is basically the same thing as today’s immigration polices.
“Once you’ve done that, it’s still incumbent to you to explain how imposing the restriction on coercively monopolized resources (e.g. roads) is morally any different from stationing gunmen to enforce the restriction on private resources against the owners’ will. If there is a salient difference, what is it? If not, then how are you not advocating a violation of rights?”
Because if the state steals property from me but then uses it in a way I would want it used, it does me less damage than if it uses it in a way totally unlike how I would want it used. This is just restitution theory. Again: my neighborhood has a public pool, which my tax dollars help pay for. They should privatize it. But if they don’t, letting me use the pool is some payback. If they let everyone in, even non-citizens, I am harmed because the pool is less useufl to me. This is really not that complicated.
Later, RG said:
“one passage that struck me as, frankly, particularly laughable:
” Accordingly, when the welfare state has imploded there will be a multitude of “little” (or not so little) Calcuttas, Daccas, Lagoses, and Tiranas strewn all over Switzerland, Austria, and Italy. It betrays a breathtaking sociological naivete to believe that a natural order will emerge out of this admixture. Based on all historical experience with such forms of multiculturalism, it can safely be predicted that in fact the result will be civil war.
“For starters, I deny that there is such a thing as a “natural order;” I think the notion, at least as Hoppe deploys it, is dangerous, anti-human nonsense.”
doesn’t “anti-human” require an idea of the natural way of things? you mean anti-human-NATURE don’t you?
” (The most important part of our nature as human beings is our capacity for creating things anew and making and remaking our social relationships.) Maybe you could explain what you think a “natural order” means, Stephan, and why you think we should aim at getting one to coalesce.”
I think by this he means (I have not re-read lately) the order that would arise in absence of governemnt–the natural elites and social structures that would substitute for things the state does badly now. Authority, morals, tradition, etc.
“For the follow-up, I had a good hard laugh when Hoppe predicted civil war inevitably following from the formation of ethno-linguistic enclaves–in Switzerland–and accused his opponents of a “breathtaking sociological naivete.” Switzerland is, in case you haven’t noticed, already a multi-ethnic, polyglot society; it has, compared to the rest of Europe, been remarkably peaceful and prosperous for over 700 years.”
I think this is just ridiculous. It is quite clear if Switzerland had open borders then it would radically change.
“So why does Hoppe believe that the formation of new ethno-linguistic enclaves in Switzerland would inevitably lead to civil war when Switzerland has been a loosely-affiliated collection of ethno-linguistic enclaves for 700 years? He doesn’t say. It is, apparently, supposed to be taken as more or less self-evident;”
It is quite obvious. Are you saying that if you did believe this, you might agree with his conclusions? Is your difference only an empirical one?
March 10th, 2005 at Mar 10, 05 | 2:13 pm
Micha: “No one “owns” public property except for the government. The government has an obligation to compensate the tax-payers it has stolen from to pay for this property, if possible, but the tax-payers as a group do not have any rightful say in how that property should be used until it is given back to them.”
How do you konw this? This is just your opinion. Anyway, I asked you if you think reasonable libertarians can have a different view on this, not whether you necessarily agree with them. And on this issue–don’t you think it’s reasonable for a libertairan to believe that if gov’t owns property that shoudl belong to citizens, then at the leasti t should use it for their benefit? For example, if the state taxes me, wouldn’t it be better for them to use it to, say, fund a library or patch up a road, rather than to pay cops to arrest drug dealers or shoot Iraqis? Is there no moral or libertarian difference? Is it all or nothing?
” How would this be accomplished if otherwise? By majority vote?”
Great questions–that’s why this issue is DEBATABLE.
“The great critic of democracy, HHH, wants to resurrect this God despite his previous claims of its failure? What could be more absurd?”
So you disagree..? But is it debatable? He is against both democracy and monarchy but says in many ways monarchy is preferable. Likewise, even though he thinks there are problems /w democrachy, he advocates they follow policies that reduce rights invasions–even if it is unlikely they will do so. Similary, you and I, I am sure, would want the state to stop passing laws outlawing victimless crimes… even though such hope is vain. Similarly, Hoppe might say (I am not sure) that public property, if it is not given back (optimal solution), should at least be used, say, as a monarch would, since this is likely to be more in the interest of most of the owners, and thus lead to the greater overall restitution. This is an imperfect solution. So what? So is yours–use the property as 0.1% of the owners want.
“Even if we assume that the majority of taxpayers are anti-immigration, why should their opinion carry more weight than the minority who are pro-immigration? This argument is way outside the bounds of libertarian thought.”
What is the alternative–do what the extreme minority wants?
“Second, for a group of people who consider themselves economists, its interesting that they hold everything constant in their predictions of what would happen with a large increase in immigrants. Surely, such a change would have no influence on public policy: the popularity of welfare would no doubt remain fixed. Please.”
This is not the point. The point is this is a multifaceted question that reasonable libertarians can disagree on. Young cocksure punks might think otherwise.
“Third, I always find it amusing when anti-immigration libertarians are so concerned with the stability and smooth functioning of the welfare state. God forbid we should put a strain on the system, for that way leads to chaos.”
Oh, well if you are arguing for the “worse is better” strategy–that, too, is arguable. Some think “worse is worse”. Surely reasonable libertarians can disagree on this without being accused of bigotry etc.
March 10th, 2005 at Mar 10, 05 | 4:29 pm
“The great critic of democracy, HHH, wants to resurrect this God despite his previous claims of its failure? What could be more absurd?”
So you disagree..? But is it debatable?
No, it is not debatable. Either coercive democracy makes sense as a method of social decision making or it doesn’t. There is no debating the absurdity of writing a book about how terrible democracy is and at the same time gladly embracing it when it can be used to keep out the furriners.
And let’s not even begin to talk about the absurdities of the anti-immigrant theory of public property when issues like child birth enter the picture (credited to Gene Callahan’s excellent article).
What is the alternative–do what the extreme minority wants?
The alternative is to stop supporting the state in all of its capacities. It’s absolutely shocking that this needs to be explained to an anarchist.
Surely reasonable libertarians can disagree on this without being accused of bigotry etc.
Perhaps some can. Hoppe is not one of them.
March 10th, 2005 at Mar 10, 05 | 11:22 pm
Kinsella:
File that one under: Things That Make You Go “What the fuck!?”
“What is the alternative” to mass popular politics? Um, ‘Stop doing that.’?
Nevermind: I don’t suppose it’s of any use at this point to explain to a self-described “libertarian” or “anarcho-capitalist” how unimportant the mass support for any particular idea is in regards to that idea’s ethical standing. Or to explain the concept that socialist calculation does not work, even if you say “But that’s what the king would do!”
Yeah: let’s all take a fucking opinion poll so’s we can judge the best way to rule other folks’ lives.
March 11th, 2005 at Mar 11, 05 | 2:35 am
Fuckin’ hilarious. All hail the anarchist moral majority!
March 11th, 2005 at Mar 11, 05 | 11:37 am
Ghertner the resolute and cocksure:
Gene’s article was more gadfly-ish than serious, I think. Anyway, most people want kids so it would not be in the owners’ interst to ban kids from public property.
Amazing that you think it’s not even debatable. Wow, you have it all figured out. So easy.
If you have a situation where the state possesses property it has in effect stolen from legitimate owners, it does indeed have a moral duty to minimize the harm to them, to give them some retribution. What you are asserting here is that it is not even debatable, not even possibly reasonable, to hold the view that: in this case the state, as caretaker-owners, ought to use the property in “reasonable” ways. YOu seem to think the state has no duty to use the property in a reasonable way… or that it should NOT do so… or that there is no “reasonable” way despite the fact that you seem to want it ot act in a certain way (let all foreigners in–i.e., use the property as 0.1% of the owners want it used, instead of using it as 99.9% of the owners would prefer it to be used).
I have no idea what you mean by “stop supporting the state”. We are not supporting the state. We readily admit that the state should be abolished… if this occurred there would be no difference in our views,,, there would be no border control, no borders, etc. We simply say that so long as the state owns public property it is a reasonable position to take that the state ought to use the property as a reasonable owner would. It is amazing to me that you would say this is not a reasonable position, as a general matter.
Then it merely becomes what a question of “reasonable” is. I think Hoppe’s suggestion of using the thought experiment of “what would a private owner–i.e., monarch–do” as a proxy for what is “reasonable” is at least worth exploring. Evidently you do not. You have it alllll figured out. Nice and neat.
March 11th, 2005 at Mar 11, 05 | 12:08 pm
Lopez: “Yeah: let’s all take a fucking opinion poll so’s we can judge the best way to rule other folks’ lives.”
Assuming the state holds public property that it should return to the owners, but is NOT returning, how should the state, in your opinion, use the property? What should the state do with public property, assuming it does not do what it should, and privatize it? I.e., what is the second-best thing the state should do with public property? Are you saying there are no standards at all that the libertarian can support? If so, I don’t see how you can argue against the proposition that the state should use the property “as a reasonable owner would” (and then it’s an empirical question or judgment as to what that is).
And if you do think there are standards for what is a libertarianly second-best use of public property by the state, then what are they? It seems you are saying the state should use the public property as a certain extreme minority would want it used. What is your reasoning for this? Why do you just assume that this is okay but that people who say the type of use preferred by the overwhelming majority is unlibertarian?
Surely, when we speak of restitution, more restitution is better than less restitution, ceteris paribus. If the state can restitute 10,000 people, this is better than restituting 1, no?
March 11th, 2005 at Mar 11, 05 | 4:00 pm
If you have a situation where the state possesses property it has in effect stolen from legitimate owners, it does indeed have a moral duty to minimize the harm to them, to give them some retribution.
This has a couple of serious problems:
1. In most cases, most immigrants aren’t coming in through channels that were once privately-owned and were state-appropriated. For instance, if immigrants are coming by van along a government highway, the government likely appropriated the money to pay for the highway a long time ago and simply paid for the construction of the highway. In the case of old highways or railroad lines, almost everyone who was a victim of the taxation is dead.
2. Where immigrants are coming in through those channels, those channels have been adversely possessed for so long that it’s difficult to say who else has a right to them besides the state. If immigrants are coming in through New York City Harbour, it’s hard to say when, if ever, the Harbour was privately owned. If it ever were, it’s certainly been adversely possessed for long enough to be considered property of NYC, New York, or the US.
3. Immigration controls still apply even if I own beachfront property and gladly take boatloads of Cubanos or Hmong. They apply even if the land was never brought under ownership and remains with the Crown by droit ancien. Immigration controls are overbroad.
- Josh
March 11th, 2005 at Mar 11, 05 | 7:14 pm
Holmes:
I was not here trying to argue the position but to show that there are reasonable views on this evne if you don’t accept them.
Holmes here just throws out the “adverse possession” idea–which is borrowed from conventional legal doctrine–as if it has obvious relevance to libertarian theory. Does it? I did not know that. In any event, even if it does, does it apply to the state? If you’re going to throw out random legal doctrines as if they have obvious libertarian bona fides–how about the doctrine of unclean hands?
The point is that yes, it is difficult to tell who the state owes the land to. Libertarians have written on this to some degree… I believe Walter Block argues the roads shoudl be returned to adjoining property owners or something like that. Or it could be returned in shares to taxpayers. THe fact that they are dead is not relevant; their heirs would hvae inherited the claim. OR so it could be argued. IF you want to argue adverse possession, truly argue this–then, the state simply owns it! If so, they have a right to do what they want, and one thing they would do is try to please the citizenry, almost all of which oppose open borders.
I am assuming, of course, that some reasonable, sincere libertarians could hold the view that the true owners of roads etc. are taxpaying citizens, and that the state ought to restitute them by using the property as they would wish. And it is clear that more restitution ceteris paribus is better than less. Adopting a rule favored by 1 out of 10,000 gives less restitution than adopting a rule favored by 9,999 out of 10,000. YOu can argue against this, but it is not a decent argument IMO to say that because you are the 1 out of 10,000, then the advocate of the general principle is a bigot or “obviously” non-libertarian.
Okay. But you open borders nuts are overbroad too–you want not only the right to have your immigrants as guests on your property, but you insist on them having the right to leave your property and hop onto and use public property. TEll you what–if you will agree to drop your insistence they have a right to use public property, I’ll meet you half-way and agree that if you can find a way to get them on your property without using public proprty, and keep them on your property, I have no objection and would agree the federal law should not stop it. Do we have a deal?
March 11th, 2005 at Mar 11, 05 | 7:41 pm
I tend to think adverse possession holds some relevance to libertarian theory. After all, if it doesn’t, basically every white person living in America is a thief. I don’t buy that notion.
If taxpayers are the proper owners of government property, it has to be argued what kind of property arrangement this is. Joint property ownership comes in several forms, and each of those separate forms would dictate different ways the owner’s agent (the state) would have to deal with immigration.
Of course, if taxpayers are co-owners, it makes sense that not only do I allow them to use my personal property, but also the property I own through my agent the state.
This rathole keeps getting deeper for you closed-borders fellas.
March 11th, 2005 at Mar 11, 05 | 10:12 pm
Kinsella:
One step at a time: for that argument to even proceed, it needs to be shown who owns what. Who owns “public property”, and why?
March 12th, 2005 at Mar 12, 05 | 1:05 am
Holmes:
This sounds similar to the argument biblethumpers put forward for the existence of God: if there is no God, life is unbearable. Therefore, there must be a God.
Of course libertarianism is all about respecting property rights. This of course means that whoever has the *better title* to a given resource is entitled to it. If an ancestor of a given Indian can show that your house is on his property–yes, he is entitled to it. Why your “not buying it” is relevant, I have no idea. In a free society, this is what property title insurance would be for.
Now. Perhaps something similar to the common law’s adverse possession rules would indeed arise in a developed libertarian legal order. For various reasons. But even the actual adverse possession law has many qualifications and exceptions. You can’t just assert the term–and apply it to the state–as if it’s that easy.
Sure, it’s messy. But the basic idea is the state is a caretaker of propert owned by a number of joint owners or claimants. Even the notion of returning the property or privatizing it is controversial. How do you do it–sell shares? What? Etc. This is all debatable. So what?